Interviews

The first time I taught an introductory organizational behavior class was in 1980 or 1981. I was a second-year doctoral student in organizational psychology at The University of Michigan. I had no teaching experience (except for one guest lecture I had given to a large undergrad class -- it was terrible; harried and dull). Yet that didn't stop the the Michigan Business School from giving me the chance to teach the class to some 60 students. I sure learned a lot that year... I still remember the strapping 250 pound football player who broke down in tears after he failed a test (to his credit, he passed the class once he started studying harder).

I have taught various versions of the class perhaps 35 times by now, and in some ways it remains the same. There are certain topics that, at least in my view, always ought to be included such as motivation, employee selection and socialization, influence, leadership, and teams. Over the years, I have started emphasizing innovation and organizational culture a bit more, and I do focus more explicitly on evidence-based management and the challenges of weaving academic research with real managerial decisions and actions.

And perhaps the main change is that I do straight lecture less and introduce more interaction. Although I still present material, I press students more to comment, to do lots of short writing assignments, to work in teams, to do short presentations, and to do in-class interactive exercises. I also bring in more people from the "real world" who can bring the lessons from the class alive. Every year, I add another small element or two to make the class a bit more interactive and realistic. And now, I put most of the materials on an online platform called NovoEd, which makes things a lot easier. But the heart of the class happens live -- the platform just makes things easier. It still is a different animal than the leadership class that I help to teach at the Stanford d.school, as there is still a lot of discussion, reading, and writing, while the "d.leadership" class entails embedding duos in organizations with the aim of making them more creative.

My favorite part of the organizational behavior class is the final exam. Students learn the question on the very first day of class: "Design the ideal organization: Use course concepts to defend your answer." It is VERY difficult, it forces students to think all term about which lessons matter most and how they fit together, and the best exams are astoundingly good. And when students try to write it the night before (despite all sorts of measures to stop them, including a draft due about 10 days before the deadline), it shows. I wrote a post here on the final a few years back, and as I said, I guess my answer to the question is The No Asshole Rule! although I didn't restrict myself to 2000 or 3000 words!

I start teaching it again in a few days, and I am, as usual, quite excited to do so. Here is the outline if you are interested (note that about 80% of the links are live and most of the readings are free to anyone): 280_Syllabus_2015Winter_In_Class_JAN3rdRIS.

This class is taught in the the Stanford Engineering School, as is our d.school class (the d.school is also part of the Engineering School, although a lot of MBAs do take our classes), but I do think that, despite all the hand wringing about how irrelevant traditional management education is becoming and how the MBA education is going to become "disrupted" is overblown. Yes, we are moving things onto the web for efficiency reasons, and a lot of the stuff on the web is becoming more social, interactive, and realistic.

But there is still no substitute for a live class discussion, having an in person interaction with someone like IDEO's marketing head Whitney Mortimer or earlier stage venture capitalist Michael Dearing, or sitting down, face to face, and going through line after line of a draft with a student. In fact,my view is that what we've been learning from online education is teaching us to make in-class education better (to focus on what works best live and in-person) and what we learn in-class makes online education better (e.g., an online "lecture" is a lot better after you have given it live to 10 or 15 groups). In addition, it many cases, the dividing line between "online" and "off" is blurring, as we might give students an assignment online, then have them do it live in-class or in a company, and then perhaps post it on an online platform.

So while there always be bumps along the way, I am optimistic that "traditional" business education is changing for the better as a result of all the online stuff, and the online stuff will keep getting better too, but it won't go away anytime soon.

Greg McKeown's publisher sent me an advanced copy of his book Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less. I said I would look at for a possible blurb (I don't do advanced praise for a lot of books, in part, because I now insist on reading the whole thing before I do -- and it takes time). I was ready to NOT be impressed, as there are frankly lots of books out there about the power of simplicity. But Greg goes beyond what I have seen from any other book with a similar message (although I am a big fan of Matt May's The Laws of Subtraction as well, but that is a different book as it has many short essays, but still has a unified writing and great writing and editing -- in fact Matt's book and Greg's would be a good pair to read together).

Through Greg's great message, his lovely spare writing style, and by gently leading the reader through his philosophy he shows you what it "disciplined" approach means, looks like, and how to "be it" not just know how to define it (I loved "the perks of being unavailable," "win big by cutting your losses," and " "select: the power of extreme criteria" in particular).

I was especially interested once I got into the book because one of the major themes of Scaling Up Excellence is that, as although much research shows that we we human beings get dumber, loss will powers, and do each task less well as cognitive load increases, the necessary practices, structures, and rituals that organizations use often make it difficult or impossible for people to perform well (especially as organizations and programs expand). We do touch on some simlar themes to Greg (we are both big advocates of sleep and taking breaks!), but we focus more on approaches for redesigning jobs, teams, and organizations, and our focus zeros in on scaling.

Essentialism is a quick and efficient read, as you would expect given the title, but you learn a lot, and there is something about the book that led me to believe that, despite my general inability to use the word "no" more often than I should for my own good, that this book will help. Although I couldn't quite resist reading the book, doing the blurb, and writing this little post!

My blurb:

“Essentialism is a powerful antidote to the current craziness that plagues our organizations and our lives. Read Greg McKeown’s words slowly, stop and think about how to apply them to your life – you will do less, do it better, and begin to feel the insanity start to slip away.”

Phyllis Korkki of the New York Times wrote a piece this Sunday for her Workstation column called Invasion of the Annual Reviews. It emphasizes the risks and downsides of annual reviews, and she quotes me quite a bit -- I didn't realize how much until the piece came out. But she got it right, as she always does (I have worked with her before, she is very professional and very careful). As Phyllis had only so many words to work with, and she weaves in the perspectives of others including an interesting clarifying statement from a Yahoo! spokesperson asserting they are not doing forced ranking, but rather "“Our system lets employees understand how they are performing relative to expectations (exceeding, achieving or missing), and there are no hard and fast rules.”

I got a couple emails from friends -- one congratulatory and the other that disagreed with me -- suggesting that the piece meant I was opposed to all annual performance reviews, not just bad performance reviews. I confess that I have raised the question of if they should be abolished before and two parts of the piece may have helped to fuel this impression:

This paraphrase from Phyllis:

Professor Sutton is wary of rankings and yearly evaluations in general. Many organizations, he said, would be better off if they provided continuous feedback, with formal evaluations coming into play mainly if a worker is being eyed for promotion or has shown substandard performance.

And the closing paragraph:

“If performance evaluations were a drug, they would not receive F.D.A. approval,” he said, because “they have so many side effects, and so often they fail.”

These are accurate representations of my perspective. But I think it is important to make clear that I am not opposed to all performance evaluations, only bad ones. -- and unfortunately, they are done badly more often then they are done well. So, what are the hallmarks of good performance evaluations? Consider three:

1. Is what happens during that annual conversation and evaluation woven into the fabric of every day life, or as I was quoted in the piece "“this weird form you fill out every year that has nothing to do with everyday life.” So if your boss gives you positive feedback all year, or doesn't give you feedback at all over the course of the year, and then you get bad review, the boss isn't doing his or her job. In organizations that generally do evaluations well, I think of McKinsey and GE, although they do yearly evaluations, there is also an emphasis on teaching and nudging leaders to constantly give their direct reports regular coaching and feedback. There are two tests here.

If you are a boss, do people often seem surprised by the feedback you give them during annual reviews?

Does the review conversation seem uncomfortable and unnatural, something that bears no relationship between the feedback and coaching (or lack of it) that happens throughout the year.

2. How is excellent performance defined and measured? In some firms, even though the goal is to create collaboration and information sharing, "stars" are nonetheless anointed solely on the basis of individual achievements (and for more senior folks, on the basis of their team of department's contribution, not on their contribution to the overall success of the organization). In too many companies, although leaders hope for cooperation, they reward backstabbing, stomping on others on the way to the top, and other flavors of dysfunctional internal competition. So the question of "who is a superstar here" is the one I ask leaders all the time, I want to know "are they the people who are great individual performers AND who help others succeed -- or are the people that ignore and even undermine their colleagues?" This is a theme that Jeff Pfeffer and I wrote about in our books on The Knowing-Doing Gap andHard Facts, and I revisit inGood Boss, Bad Boss. Note also that both GE and McKinsey are usually very careful to anoint the right kind of stars -- and so are a lot of other organizations I admire including IDEO, P&G, and the Cleveland Clinic.

3. Finally, while I believe strongly in weeding out bad apples and rewarding good behavior, what are the assumptions about the nature of a human organization? Do leaders believe that there will always be a certain percentage of losers who will need to be weeded out and a certain percentage of amazing performers who deserve the lion's share of rewards. This is the assumption that drives many stack ranking and one I don't like and that is contrary to the evidence. It is also contrary to the logic of the quality movement (which weirdly, GE who at least had this system in the past embraced as well). Imagine a manufacturing system or worse yet a hospital where you assumed that year over that there would be a 10% defect rate, 70% of the work would only be OK, and only 20% would be great. Unfortunately, that is the implication of how stack ranking is done in some places, even other wise very well managed places.

Here is how things can play out when this assumption is implemented in a misguided way. One senior executive I know had spent years building a great 12 person team. He hired carefully, he weeded out a few rotten apples, and has the team humming. Then, the company hired a head of HR who had unwavering faith in firing the bottom 10% each year -- he was required to fire one of his people. In essence, following the logic of Deming and other quality gurus, he had built a system with no defective parts -- but was required to throw one away. He refused to do it and quit -- which, as he told them, solved their problem, because now they didn't have to fire a member of his team (which they did anyway, as he "didn't count.")

I hope this clarifies my views. Note that the NYT's piece also talks a bit about Adobe's recent efforts to abolish annual reviews and replace them with frequent check-ins. Huggy Rao and had in-depth conversations with Donna Morris, the brave executive who led this change, and we talk about the details in our forthcoming book Scaling Up Excellence. The upshot is that Donna and her colleagues worked on shifting the focus from the mechanics of annual reviews to the nuances of daily interactions between leaders and their teams.

I am quite interested in the path that Adobe is taking because the result may be that, indeed, there is a better alternative to yearly performance evaluations. Indeed, note that, in the places that do them well, they are woven into the fabric of everyday life -- so perhaps an interesting test of how bad AND how good your annual performance evaluation is "what would happen if we didn't do them?" Oddly, if you are doing them really badly, then I would argue that doing nothing might be better. Just give employees an envelope with their yearly raise and skip that stilted dysfunctional disingenuous yearly conversation. And if you are doing things really well, then perhaps you will find out that you don't need them after all because people are getting such regular feedback and coaching that the formalities are a waster of time in most cases-- think of all the time and money you would save!

Stanford's James G. March is arguably the most prestigious living organizational theorist. We are reading his 1981 classic paper "Footnotes to Organizational Change" for my scaling up excellence doctoral class. There is one paragraph in this paper that is especially inspired, in the beautiful style of his, March is explaining (among other things) that what many people (including senior management) see as resistance and rigidity is actually proof of great flexibility and innovation -- but the resulting changes are often what any one group actors don't want or expect:

Whatmost reports on implementation indicate, however, is not that organizations are rigid and inflexible, but that they are impressively imaginative (Pressman and Wildavsky, 1973; Bardach, 1977). Organizations change in response to their
environments, but they rarely change in a way that fulfills the intentions of a
particular group of actors (Attewell and Gerstein,1979; Crozier, 1979). Sometimes
organizations ignore clear instructions; sometimes they pursue them more
forcefully than was intended; sometimes they protect policymakers from folly;
sometimes they do not. The ability to frustrate arbitrary intention, however,
should not be confused with rigidity; nor should flexibility be confused with
organizational effectiveness…There is considerable stability in organizations,
but the changes we observe are substantial enough to suggest that organizations
are remarkably adaptive, enduring institutions, responding to volatile
environments routinely and easily, though not always optimally.

There is so much wisdom -- and also so much underlying evidence packed into this statement -- that I am going to devote a long time to discussing it with my students later today! My favorite line is "sometimes they pursue them more forcefully then intended." I once studied a large convenience store chain that spent millions of dollars trying to increase courtesy after the CEO had a temper tantrum about bad service her received in a store -- he was pretty shocked when he learned how strongly the company responded, as they rolled out a far larger a program than he expected, wanted, or believed would be useful!

I've always been interested in situations like this where small signals from powerful people result in much stronger reactions than they intend -- the opposite of resistance to change, if you will. And in this case it led them to scale up a program that was much bigger, expensive, and time-consuming than he ever intended.

Several months back, Scott Berkun's publisher sent me an advanced copy of "The Year Without Pants" to read; it is a pretty silly title and as you can see, the cover is pretty wild too (I love it). Scott's last book, Confessions of a Public Speaker, was just splendid, so I thought I would take a look. I was hooked immediately, as Scott offers a compelling story of the year he spent at Wordpress.com, a fast growing and wildly unconventional company where employees work from wherever they wish, there are few meetings and rules, and many of the conventional trappings are removed. At the same time, because Scott is such a compelling writer and so honest about things, he doesn't whitewash things, he describes the ups and downs and the tensions.

And if you read this book, you will also learn that some of the beliefs that people have about the future of work likely won't come true. Yes, people had enormous freedom and were massively creative -- but at the same time -- they couldn't escape the constraints of being in an organization.They still needed some hierarchy (Scott was a team leader and he had some bosses too), there were agreements about standard ways to do -- and not do -- things, and everyone wasn't always delighted with how things unfolded. His team was unusually functional and creative, the descriptions are wonderful, and the book also is filled with great pictures and other graphics that show the real people and the places they worked, and the kind of work they produced.

I read, or more accurately, start to read, several business books each week. Most aren't very good, to tell you the truth. This is the best book I have read since Adam Grant'sGive and Take. If you read this book and Tracy Kidder's classic Soul of a New Machine, you can learn a lot about how work is changing (at least in some places), but also, about how it is still the same too. The technology certainly changes how and where we work, but we are still humans, we are social creatures, we strive for meaning and creativity, and we are all limited (and propelled) by our personal quirks and the attribuites of our species.

P.S. The Year Without Pants comes out in a few weeks, but I suggest that you preorder it, both because you will want it and because preorders will help this book get the attention it deserves. I am going to preorder my copy right now.

I was looking through the books on Amazon to find something that struck my fancy, and instead, I started thinking about the books that have taught me much about people, teams, and organizations -- while at the same time -- provide useful guidance (if sometimes only indirectly) about what it takes to lead well versus badly. The 12 books below are the result.

Most are research based, and none are a quick read (except for Orbiting the Giant Hairball). I guess this reflects my bias. I like books that have real substance beneath them. This runs counter the belief in the business book world at the moment that all books have to be both short and simple. So, if your kind of business book is The One Minute Manager (which frankly, I like too... but you can read the whole thing in 20 or 30 minutes), then you probably won't like most of these books at all.

1. The Progress Principle by Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer. A masterpiece of evidence-based management -- the strongest argument I know that "the big things are the little things."

2. Influence by Robert Cialdini the now classic book about how to persuade people to do things, how to defend against persuasion attempts, and the underlying evidence. I have been using this in class at Stanford for over 20 years, and I have had dozens of students say to me years later "I don't remember much else about the class, but I still use and think about that Cialdini book."

3.Made to Stick Chip and Dan Heath. A modern masterpiece, the definition of an instant classic. How to design ideas that people will remember and act on. I still look at it a couple times a month and I buy two or three copies at a time because people are always borrowing it from me. I often tell them to keep it because they rarely give it back anyway.

4. Thinking, Fast and Slow Daniel Kahneman. Even though the guy won the Nobel Prize, this book is surprisingly readable. A book about how we humans really think, and although it isn't designed to do this, Kahneman also shows how much of the stuff you read in the business press is crap.

5. Collaboration by Morten Hansen. He has that hot bestseller now with Jim Collins called Great By Choice, which I need to read. This is a book I have read three times and is -- by far -- the best book ever written about what it takes to build an organization where people share information, cooperate, and help each other succeed.

6. Orbiting the Giant Hairball by Gordon MacKenzie. It is hard to explain, sort of like trying to tell a stranger about rock and roll as the old song goes. But it is the best creativity book ever written, possibly the business book related to business ever written. Gordon's voice and love creativity and self-expression -- and how to make it happen despite the obstacles that unwittingly heartless organizations put in the way -- make this book a joy.

7. The Pixar Touch by David Price. After reading this book, my main conclusion was that it seems impossible that Pixar exists. Read how Ed Catmull along with other amazing characters-- after amazing setbacks, weird moments, and one strange twist after another -- realized Ed's dream after working on it for decades. Ed is working on his own book right now, I can hardly wait to see that. When I think of Ed and so many others I have met at Pixar like Brad Bird, I know it is possible to be a creative person without being an asshole. In fact, at least if the gossip I keep hearing from Pixar people is true, Jobs was rarely rude or obnoxious in his dealings with people at Pixar because he knew they knew more than him -- and even he was infected by Pixar's norm of civility.

8. Creativity,Inc. by Ed Catmull. Price's book is fantastic, but this is one of the best business/leadership/organization design books ever written. As I wrote in my blurb -- and this is no B.S.- "“This is the best book ever written on what it takes to build a creative organization. It is the best because Catmull’s wisdom, modesty, and self-awareness fill every page. He shows how Pixar’s greatness results from connecting the specific little things they do (mostly things that anyone can do in any organization) to the big goal that drives everyone in the company: making films that make them feel proud of one another.” Note also that Catmull has a chapter on Steve Jobs that offers a different perspective than anyone else I have seen --and they worked together for decades.

9. The Laws of Subtraction by Matthew May. This 2012 book has more great ideas about how to get rid of what you don't need and how to keep -- and add -- what you do need than any book ever written. Matt has as engaging a writing style as I have ever encountered and he uses it to teach one great principle after another, from "what isn't there can trump what is" to "doing something isn't always better than doing nothing." Then each principle is followed with five or six very short -- and well-edited pieces -- from renowned and interesting people of all kinds ranging from executives, to researchers, to artists. It is as fun and useful as non-fiction book can be and is useful for designing every part of your life, not just workplaces.

10. Leading Teams by J. Richard Hackman. When it comes to the topic of groups or teams, there is Hackman and there is everyone else. If you want a light feel good romp that isn't very evidence-based, read The Wisdom of Teams. If want to know how teams really work and what it really takes to build, sustain, and lead them from a man who has been immersed in the problem as a researcher, coach, consultant, and designer for over 40 years, this is the book for you.

11. Give and Take by Adam Grant. Adam is the hottest organizational researcher of his generation. When I read the pre-publication version, I was so blown away by how useful, important, and interesting that Give and Take was that I gave it the most enthusiastic blurb of my life: “Give and Take just might be the most important book of this young century. As insightful and entertaining as Malcolm Gladwell at his best, this book has profound implications for how we manage our careers, deal with our friends and relatives, raise our children, and design our institutions. This gem is a joy to read, and it shatters the myth that greed is the path to success." In other words, Adam shows how and why you don't need to be a selfish asshole to succeed in this life. America -- and the world -- would be a better place if all of memorized and applied Adam's worldview.

12. The Path Between the Seas by historian David McCullough. On building the Panama Canal. This is a great story of how creativity happens at a really big scale. It is messy. Things go wrong. People get hurt. But they also triumph and do astounding things. I also like this book because it is the antidote to those who believe that great innovations all come from start-ups and little companies (although there are some wild examples of entrepreneurship in the story -- especially the French guy who designs Panama's revolution -- including a new flag and declaration of independence as I recall -- from his suite in the Waldorf Astoria in New York, and successfully sells the idea to Teddy Roosevelt ). As my Stanford colleague Jim Adams points out, the Panama Canal, the Pyramids, and putting a man on moon are just a few examples of great human innovations that were led by governments.

P.S. Also, for self-defense, I recommend that we all read Isaacson's Steve Jobs -- I still keep going places -- cocktail parties, family gatherings, talks I give and attend, and even the grocery store where people start talking about Jobs and especially arguing about him. As I explained in Wired and Good Boss, Bad Boss I have come to believe that whatever Jobs was in life, in death he has become a Rorschach test -- we all just project our beliefs and values on him.

I got a note from a manager about this cartoon and story at the Marketoonist, which is drawn and written by Tim Fishburne -- he talks about The No Asshole Rule and the problem of brillant jerks. Check out his site, it is filled with great stuff -- like this cartoon and story about my least-favorite U.S. company, United Airlines.

P.S. I am sorry I have not been blogging much, I am hoping to turn up the volume and have a lot of things to write about, especially Matt May's new book The Laws of Subtraction. But life keeps getting in the way!

I spent the morning trying to catch-up on all the emails that have been piling-up and the stuff I have been collecting to read for the book we are are writing on scaling-up excellence. Huggy Rao and I spent the week as co-directors of an executive program called Customer-Focused Innovation. We had great fun and learned an enormous amount from the 65 executives who participated in blend of traditional classroom education (we call it the "clean models" part) and d.school experiential education -- project with JetBlue aimed at bringing more "humanity" to air travel for their customers (we call this the "dirty hands" part).

The program appears to be a big success (participants rated it 4.87 on a 5-point "willingness to recommend" scale). But after all those logistics and all that social ramble, I am delighted to have a quiet day.
I wasn't planning on doing a post, but I couldn't resist sharing the opening of an article by the amazing Karl Weick, one of the most imaginative people in my field.

Karl started out his 2002 British Journal of Management on "Puzzles in Organizational Learning: An Exercise in Disciplined Imagination" this way:

It is sometimes possible to explore basic questions in the university that are tough to raise in other settings. John Gardner (1968, p. 90) put it well when he said that the university stands for:

• things that are forgotten in the heat of battle

•values that get pushed aside in the rough and tumble of everyday living

• the goals we ought to be thinking about and never do

• the facts we don’t like to face

• the questions we lack the courage to ask

I read that list over and over. As you may know, the late John Gardner was one of the most thoughtful leadership "gurus" who ever lived and so much more. As a university professor, this reminded me of why my colleagues and I -- at our best, we all screw-up at times -- do certain things that annoy, surprise, and -- now and then -- actually help people. We feel obligated to take years trying to figure out the answers to questions that seem pretty simple on the surface. We study obscure things that seem trivial or at least not very important right now. We feel obligated to go with the best evidence even when we don't like answer (e.g., the recent Stanford study that shows there is little or no documented health advantage to organic food isn't something I want to hear, but it is so carefully done that I accept it as the provisionally true). We also feel obligated to ask questions of ourselves at others that can be quite unpleasant for everyone.

I think of my colleague Jeff Pfeffer in particular here, who throughout his whole career, has raised questions about everything from the overblown effects of leadership, to the ways that focusing on money turns us greedy and selfish, to his current work on how organizations and workplaces can make us ill and cause us to die premature deaths. Jeff has made a lot of people squirm people over the years, including me, but he is doing exactly what John Gardner asserted that a good professor ought to do -- seek and tell the truth, even when it is hard to take.

As has happened so many times throughout the nearly 30 years I have been a university professor, Karl Weick (with a big assist from John Gardner this time) has reminded me yet again of what is important in my line of work and the standards I should try to follow.

As regular readers of this blog may recall, my wife -- Marina Park -- is the CEO of the Girl Scouts of Northern California. It has been a busy year from Marina and her staff because it is the 100 year anniversary of the founding of the Girl Scouts and there have been many celebrations. There was an especially wild one called 100 Hundred, Fun Hundred where some 24,000 girls gathered at the Alameda County Fair Grounds to camp and engage in activities ranging from rock climbing, to scuba diving, to dancing to roakc bands. You can read about the various celebrations here on their website.

Today, I am focusing on the Forever Green Awards -- a series of dinners that have been held throughout Northern California to honor women who "have made a significant impact to sustaining the environment, economy, or community." I have been three of the eight award dinners now and have been inspired by many of these women (here is the complete list), from opera soprano Katherine Jolly, to Jane Shaw the Chairman of the Board at Intel, to Amelia Ceja -- the Owner & President Ceja Vineyards.

I heard something last week at the dinner in Menlo Park that especially caught my ear -- from none other than Brandi Chastain, the Olympic Women's Soccer gold medal winner and world champion, who still plays soccer seriously and now often works as a sports broadcaster for ABC and ESPN. Of course, Chastain we always be remembered for throwing off her jersey after scoring the winning goal at the Women's World Championships in 1999 -- in 2004 she wrote a book called "Its Not About the Bra."

The award winners at Menlo Park were each asked to describe the best advice they ever received. Brandi began by talking about her grandfather and how crucial he was to her development as a soccer player and a person. Brandi said that he had a little reward system where she was paid $1.00 for scoring a goal but $1.50 for an assist -- because, as she put it, "it is better to give than receive."

I love that on so many levels. I helped coach girls soccer teams for some years, and getting the star players to pass was often tough. And moving into the world of organizations, as Jeff Pfeffer and I have been arguing for years, too many organizations create dysfunctional internal competition by saying they want cooperation but behaving in ways that promote selfish behavior. Chastain's grandfather applied a simple principle that can be used in even the most sophisticated reward systems -- one that I have seen used to good effect in places ranging from General Electric, to IDEO, to McKinsey.

P.S. The last Forever Green Awards will be in Santa Rosa at the Paradise Ridge Winery. Click here if you want to learn more.

I confess that as an avid reader of The New York Times, I have been disappointed in recent years because they devote too much space to interviews with CEOs and other bosses. Notably, it seems to me that they run the same column twice every Sunday: Adam Bryant's "The Corner Office" and another interview column called "The Boss." I do love many of these interviews anyway, as The Times gets interesting people and their editing makes things better. And I am a big fan of Adam Bryant's book, The Corner Office, as it did a great job of transcending the column. What bugs me, however, is that The Times devotes so much of the paper to interviews now, I suspect, because it is simply cheaper than producing hard-hitting investigative journalism. They do an occasional amazing in-depth story, but there is too much fluff and not enough tough for my tastes.

That said, some of the interviews are still striking. One of the best I have ever read appeared a couple years back, with Citrix CEO Mark Templeton. The whole interview is unusually thoughtful and reminds me that people who don't see themselves as CEOs and don't lust after the position often turn out to be the best candidate for the job (related point: see this study that shows groups tend to pick people with big mouths to lead but that less pushy and extroverted leaders tend to lead more effective teams -- at least when the teams were composed of proactive members). In particular, however, I was taken with this quote from Templeton:

You have to make sure you never confuse the hierarchy that you need for managing complexity with the respect that people deserve. Because that’s where a lot of organizations go off track, confusing respect and hierarchy, and thinking that low on hierarchy means low respect; high on the hierarchy means high respect. So hierarchy is a necessary evil of managing complexity, but it in no way has anything to do with respect that is owed an individual.

If you say that to everyone over and over and over, it allows people in the company to send me an e-mail no matter what their title might be or to come up to me at any time and point out something — a great idea or a great problem or to seek advice or whatever.

There is so much wisdom here, including:

1. While there are researchers and other idealists running around and urging companies to rip down their hierarchies and to give everyone equal power and decision rights, and this notion that we are all equal in every way may sound like a lovely thought, the fact is that people prefer and need pecking orders and other trappings of constraint such as rules and procedures. As Templeton points out so wisely, organizations need hierarchies to deal with complexity. Yes, some hierarchies are better than others -- some are too flat, some have to many layers, some have bad communication flows, and organizational designers should err on making them as "light" and "simple" as possible -- but as he says, they are a necessary evil.

2. His second point really hits home and is something that all too many leaders -- infected with power poisoning -- seem to forget as they sit at the top of the local pecking order "thinking that low on hierarchy means low respect; high on the hierarchy means high respect." When leaders believe and especially act on this belief, all sorts of good things happen, including your best people stay (even if you can't pay them as much as competitors), they feel obligated to return the respect by giving their all to the organization (and feel obligated to press their colleagues to do as well), and a norm of treating people with dignity and respect emerges and is sustained. Plus, as Templeton points out, because fear is low and respect is high, people at the top tend to get more truth -- and less CYA and ass-kissing behavior.

No organization is perfect. But a note for all the bosses out there. If you read Templeton's quote a few times and think about what it means for running your organization, it can help you take a big step toward excellence in terms of both the performance and well-being among the people you lead.

My last post was about how United Airlines lost Phoebe, my friend’s 10-year old daughter. All of us involved in this story – especially parents Annie and Perry, NBC’s Diane Dwyer (the only media person that interviewed Annie and Phoebe), and me – were stunned to see how viral it went. A Google search last night revealed it was reported in at least 160 outlets – including England, France, and Germany with the facts based only on the post written here, Annie and Perry’s complaint letter, and United’s tepid apology. This blog received over 200,000 hits in the last two days; 2000 is typical. Annie and Perry have resisted the intrusive onslaught of media people (most were polite, several incredibly rude) and elected to do a single interview with Diane Dwyer. It appeared locally in the San Francisco Bay Area as well is in a shorter (but I think still excellent) form this morning on The Today Show. Here is the link to The Today Show video and to Diane’s written story on the local NBC site.

I also want to reprint United's statement because it lacks even a hint of empathy or compassion. Note that it does not question any of the facts put forth by Annie and Perry and also note that no attempt was made to reach out to Annie and Perry until United was contacted by NBC reporter Diane Dwyer. As one executive I know explained -- he is in what they call Global Services, the top 1% of United customers -- even the statement is a symptom of how deep the denial is and how shallow the humanity is in the company:

“We reached out directly to the Klebahns to apologize and we are reviewing this matter. What the Klebahns describe is not the service we aim to deliver to our customers. We are redepositing the miles used to purchase the ticket back into Mr. Klebahn’s account in addition to refunding the unaccompanied minor charge. We certainly appreciate their business and would like the opportunity to provide them a better travel experience in the future.“

Charles Hobart/United Airlines Spokesman

Annie and Perry have written a statement below and as you can see, they aren’t going to be doing any additional media and their focus is on persuading United to change its policies and procedures for handling unaccompanied minors. They ask the media and anyone else out there to please respect their privacy from now onward.

As they request, I will also shift my efforts here and elsewhere to trying to understand how United reached the point where they are so broken, developing ideas about what can be done to save them from themselves, and to press United to break out of its current denial and start down the road to redemption.

Here is the statement from Annie and Perry, again, please respect their privacy.

On behalf of the Klebahn family we appreciate your interest in our story. We feel strongly that United's program for handling unaccompanied minors is deeply flawed and that they need to seriously overhaul this program and their entire approach to customer service.

Hundreds of thousands of families send their kids on United each year as unaccompanied minors. We sent our daughter away to summer camp, but many families are separated for a variety of reasons and sending their kids on planes alone is part of their required routine. United offers this service, and families like us trust and rely on them to provide safe, secure passage for children. The age of the children United takes into their care is 5-11 years old and not all of them carry cell phones, nor have the maturity to know what to do in an emergency. It's astounding how many flaws there are in United's program but at a bare minimum we think they need to change the following:

United does not disclose that their unaccompanied minor service is outsourced to a third party vendor--this needs to change so parents can make an informed choice about who they are entrusting their children to when they travel alone

If United is going to continue offering this service to families they need to offer a dedicated 24/7 phone line that is staffed with a live human being in the U.S. so that parents have an active and real resource to use during their travel experience

United should also be required to alert parents immediately of travel delays and alternative plans for the minors in their care

It is still startling to us that after our unbelievable experience it took six weeks, and a press story by NBC, to have United even consider responding to our concerns and complaints. Our only goal in all of this is to have United acknowledge that their program is flawed, and to consider an immediate overhaul before another child gets lost or hurt. Getting our $99 back with a veiled apology means nothing given what we've been through.

As an organization United is broken. They have the worst customer rating of all airlines, they have the highest number of official complaints on the US Department of Transportation's website, and the largest number of negative comments on the Internet, Facebook and Twitter. How can they not notice that they are doing it wrong?

At this point the important thing for us is that our daughter is safe. We can only hope that making our story public will in some way make an impact by adding another voice to the many out there asking United to change. If you would like to add your voice too, please join our petition to change United's Unaccompanied Minor Program by signing your name to the petition we started on Change.org.

We would like to thank Diane Dwyer at NBC and Dr. Robert Sutton for their help telling this story. There will be no further comments or interviews.

I was intrigued to see the new study that shows companies perform better when they have women on their boards. Check out this story and video at CNBC. Here is the upshot: "Credit Suisse analyzed more than 2,500 companies and found that companies with more than one woman on the board have outperformed those with no women on the board by 26 percent since 2005."

This result becomes even more compelling when you pair it with a rigorous study done a couple years ago. It showed that groups that have a higher percentage of women have higher "collective intelligence" -- they perform better across an array of difficult tasks "that ranged from visual puzzles to negotiations, brainstorming, games and complex rule-based design assignments," as this summary from Science News reports. In that research, the explanation was pretty interesting, as the authors set out to study collective intelligence, not gender. As Science News reported:

Only when analyzing the data did the co-authors suspect that the number of women in a group had significant predictive power. "We didn't design this study to focus on the gender effect," Malone says. "That was a surprise to us." However, further analysis revealed that the effect seemed to be explained by the higher social sensitivity exhibited by females, on average. "So having group members with higher social sensitivity is better regardless of whether they are male or female,"

Yet, despite all this, there is still massive sexism out there, especially in the upper reaches of many corporations. Note this report from the Women's Forum: "While women comprise 51% of the population, they make up only 15.7% of Fortune 500 boards of directors, less than 10% of California tech company boards, and 9.1% of Silicon Valley boards."

Pathetic huh? And it is pretty good evidence that all those sexist boys who love going to board meetings and retreats unfettered by those pesky women are just hurting themselves -- and their shareholders -- in the end. But perhaps there is justice in the world, as this just may be a case where "times wounds all heels."

Indeed, I wonder when we will see the first shareholders' suit where a company that has no women on the board, and suffers financial setbacks, is sued. Their failure to do so could be construed as a violation of their fiduciary responsibility. I know this sounds silly, it does to me. But lawyers and shareholders have sued -- and won -- over far more absurd things, as this would at least be an evidence-based claim (albeit one that stretches the evidence a bit too far for my tastes).

I can't even recall quite when it happened, but several month back a Wired reporter named Ben Austen called me about a piece he was doing on Steve Jobs' legacy. I confess that kept the conversation short, in large part because I was just getting tired of the story -- and I think everyone else is as well. But this turned into the cover story, which -- despite my lack of enthusiasm about the topic -- is one of the most balanced and well-researched pieces I have seen. At least that became my biased opinion after I saw that he plugged my last two books in the final three paragraphs! Here is the whole piece if you want to read it and here is my argument -- you can read the whole excerpt about Jobs as a Rorschach test here, where I put it in earlier post. Here is how Ben Austen ended his piece:

As he was writing his 2007 book, The No Asshole Rule, Robert Sutton, a professor of management and engineering at Stanford, felt obligated to include a chapter on “the virtues of assholes,” as he puts it, in large part because of Jobs and his reputation even then as a highly effective bully. Sutton granted in this section that intimidation can be used strategically to gain power. But in most situations, the asshole simply does not get the best results. Psychological studies show that abusive bosses reduce productivity, stifle creativity, and cause high rates of absenteeism, company theft, and turnover—25 percent of bullied employees and 20 percent of those who witness the bullying will eventually quit because of it, according to one study.

When I asked Sutton about the divided response to Jobs’ character, he sent me an excerpt from the epilogue to the new paperback edition of his Good Boss, Bad Boss, written two months after Jobs’ death. In it he describes teaching an innovation seminar to a group of Chinese CEOs who seemed infatuated with Jobs. They began debating in high-volume Mandarin whether copying Jobs’ bad behavior would improve their ability to lead. After a half-hour break, Sutton returned to the classroom to find the CEOs still hollering at one another, many of them emphatic that Jobs succeeded because of—not in spite of—his cruel treatment of those around him.

Sutton now thinks that Jobs was too contradictory and contentious a man, too singular a figure, to offer many usable lessons. As the tale of those Chinese CEOs demonstrates, Jobs has become a Rorschach test, a screen onto which entrepreneurs and executives can project a justification of their own lives: choices they would have made anyway, difficult traits they already possess. “Everyone has their own private Steve Jobs,” Sutton says. “It usually tells you a lot about them—and little about Jobs.”

The point at which I really decided that the Jobs obsession was both silly and dangerous came about a month after his death. Huggy Rao and I were doing an interview on scaling-up excellence with a local CEO who founded a very successful company -- you would recognize the name of his company. After I stopped recording the interview, this guy -- who has a reputation as a caring, calm, and wickedly smart CEO -- asked Huggy Rao and me if we thought he had to be an asshole like Jobs in order for his company to achieve the next level of success.... he seemed genuinely worried that his inability to be nasty to people was career limiting.

Ugh. I felt rather ill and argued that it was important to be tough and do the dirty work when necessary, but treating people like dirt along way was not the path to success as a leader or a human-being. Perhaps this is my answer to the Steve Jobs Rorschach test: I believe that Jobs succeeded largely despite rather than because of the abuse he sometimes heaped on people. Of course, this probably tells you more about me than Jobs!

That is the title of weird interview that just came out in INC this month, which I did with Leigh Buchanan. And the above drawing is by Graham Roumieu.

Here is the story on the INC website. The title is different online than in the print version, they call it "Thoroughly Counterintuitive Approach to Leading."

Leigh is always fun to talk to, and after having done interviews on both The No Asshole Rule and Good Boss, Bad Boss, she has emerged as one of my favorite journalists. For starters, she has such a sense of fun -- most of us involved in doing and working with management are entirely too serious -- I certainly plead guilty. Leigh has the rare ability to talk about real ideas while at the same time conveying the absurdity of so much of organizational life . She is also a great editor. In every interview I have done with her, I've rambled incoherently on for an hour or so, and she somehow put it in a form that made sense.

This new interview a conglomeration of some of the stranger ideas from the various books I have written, especially Weird Ideas That Work along with some new twists. As with weird ideas , I offer these ideas to challenge your assumptions (and my own) and to prompt us all to think. I don't expect you to agree with them (I am not even sure I agree with all of them), but there is actually a fair amount of evidence and theory to support each of these sometimes uncomfortable ideas.

To give you a taste,here is how the interview kicks-off:

Leigh: You and I have been e-mailing about leadership traits, and at one point you suggested, “Good leaders know when to be boring, vague, emotionally detached, and authoritarian.” Under what circumstances might such traits be desirable? Start with boring.

Me: There are two situations in which it’s a good idea to be boring. One is when you’re working on something but, so far, all you’ve got is bad news. Under those circumstances, any outside attention is bad.

Don Petersen was the CEO of Ford after the Iaccoca era, and he was responsible for turning the company around. He told me a story about being invited to speak at the National Press Club. He didn’t want to do it. At the time, Ford had no good cars at all. But he and his PR chief decided he would go and give a speech about the most boring subject they could think of. At the time, that was safety. He practiced speaking in the most boring way possible, using the passive voice and long sentences. He put up charts that were hard to read, and then turned his back to the audience to talk about the charts. After that, the press lost interest in him for a while, so he could concentrate on doing the work.

The other situation is when you’re dealing with controversy. Stanford used to have this brilliant provost, James Rosse. When Jim talked about something like the school’s Nobel Prize winners, he would be animated and exciting and charismatic. But when he had to talk about something like the lack of diversity on campus, he would ramble on for 20 minutes while looking at his feet. I thought it was brilliant

And so it goes. I hope you enjoy and I think Leigh for being such a delight to work with and for reminding me not to take myself so seriously.

Kellogg professor J. Keith Murnighan, my colleague and charming friend, has just published a lovely book called "Do Nothing." I first read the manuscript some months back (and thus could provide the praise you see on the cover) and I just spent a couple hours revisiting this gem.

This crazy book will bombard you with ideas that challenge your assumptions. His argument for doing nothing, for example, kicks-off the book. I was ready to argue with him because, even though I believe the best management is sometimes no management at all, I thought he was being too extreme. But as I read the pros and cons (Keith makes extreme statements, but his arguments are always balanced and evidenced-based), I became convinced that if more managers took this advice their organizations would more smoothly, their people would perform better (and learn more), and they would enjoy better work-life balance.

He convinced me that it this is such a useful half-truth (or perhaps three-quarters-truth) that every boss ought to try his litmus test: Go on vacation, leave your smart phone at home, and don't check or send any messages. Frankly, many bosses I know can't accomplish this for three hours (and I mean even during the hours they are supposed to be asleep), let alone for the three weeks he suggests. As Keith says, an interesting question is what is a scarier outcome from this experiment for most bosses: Discovering how MUCH or how LITTLE their people actually need them.

You will argue with and then have a tough time resisting Keith's logic, evidence, and delightful stories when it comes to his other bits of strange advice as well. I was especially taken with "start at the end," "trust more," "ignore performance goals," and "de-emphasize profits." Keith shows how the usual managerial approach of starting out relationships by mistrusting people and then slowly letting trust develop is not usually as beneficial as starting by assuming that others can be fully trusted until they prove otherwise. He will also show you how to make more money by thinking about money less!

As these bits suggest, Keith didn't write this book with the aim of telling most bosses what they wanted to hear. Rather his goal was to make readers think, to challenge their assumptions, and to show the way to becoming better managers by thinking and acting differently. In a world where we have thousands of business books published every year that all seem to say the same thing, I found Do Nothing delightful and refreshing -- not just because it is quirky and fun, but because Keith also shows managers how to try these crazy ideas in low-risk and sensible ways.

I sent out a tweet the other day about a study showing that men who score high on a narcissism test appear to experience more stress than those who score low (but not narcissistic women). Stress was measured by "cortisol levels," a hormone that "signals the level of activation of the body’s key stress response system, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis."

You can see a report about study here. I thought the most interesting part was the link to the 40 item Narcissistic Personality Quiz, which is based on the measure in this paper: Raskin, R. & Terry, H. (1988). A Principal-Components Analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and Further Evidence of Its Construct Validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5). Note that Journal of Personality and Social Psychology is one of the best and most rigorous psychology journals, so the source is excellent.

Try taking the quiz. I just did and scored an "8,' which suggests a low level of narcissism. I confess, however, that I am wondering if my low score was a reflection of my lack of narcissism or of my knowledge of the narcissism literature in concert with a bit of self-delusion. I also confess that I completed it a second time as if I were one especially narcissistic boss that I once worked with. That boss (in my opinion) earns a 32 -- a very high score as above 20 indicates narcissism. The quiz omits one thing this person did which indicates narcissism: It was amazing how, no matter what the topic, how within 3 minutes, every conversation with that boss always became conversation about what a successful and impressive person he was and all the people who admired him and his work.

If you really are the mood for self-assessment, you can take both this quiz and the (less scientific) Asshole Rating Self-Exam or ARSE. That way you can find out if you are a narcissist, a certified asshole, or both!

For better and worse, one of the most well-established studies in the behavioral sciences is that we human-beings tend to have inflated and often wildly inaccurate evaluations of our skills and actions -- this is sometimes called self-enhancement bias. I have written about this here before, in discussing David Dunning's book Self-Insight, which shows that this tendency for self-delusion is especially pronounced in areas where we are most incompetent! As I wrote then (and dug into inGood Boss, Bad Boss to explain why self-awareness is so difficult for leaders -- especially bad leaders):

In a survey of thousands of high school seniors ,70% of respondents rated their leadership ability as above average while only 2% rated their leadership ability as below average, and -- turning to my own profession -- 94% of college professors say they do above average work.

The pile of evidence for self-enhancement bias grew a bit lately, with a new study on tailgating. As USA Today tells us:

Michelin is putting out a little research that shows that 74% of drivers say someone tailgated them in the past six months. But only 11% admit to having tailgated someone else.

The lesson from all this is if you think that problems are always caused by other people around you and are rarely if ever to blame, well, that might be good for protecting your tender ego, but it is a lousy mindset for identifying and repairing your flaws!

That is the final exam question that I've been using for about a decade in my graduate class "Organizational Behavior:An Evidence-Based Approach" in our Department of Management Science & Engineering at Stanford. Students get 3000 words to answer the question. I put in on the course outline so they can see it the first day of class. I do so because I want propsective students to decide if they can deal with a class with so much ambiguity and pressure to write well and because I want students to start thinking about their paper from the first day of class. I encourage and reward them for being as creative as possible, while at the same time, weaving together concepts related to major themes in the class such as leadership, employee selection and socialization, motivation and rewards, interpersonal influence, group dynamics, organizational change, innovation, and organizational culture.

As I tell the students, this is a really hard question. In fact, so hard, it is difficult for me to answer even after studying the topic for over 30 years. I guess I did answer it in at least one of my books, The No Asshole Rule, although that was a lot longer than 3000 words. After a decade or so, I have read about 1000 answers to this question. Every year, I go through the same process with it. About a week before the papers are due, I start having second thoughts about it as I talk to the students about their struggles with answering such an open-ended question. After all, this is the Stanford Engineering School, and while some our students write beautifully, for many others, this is the first time they have faced such an open-ended writing assignment. Then, the same thing happens every year. The pile of papers come in, I start reading them, and I am delighted with the overall quality and dazzled by the best papers -- and pleased by the creativity and even joy the students so many students convey.

The range and quality of the papers was especially striking this year. I believe it was largely because my two course assistants, Belinda Chiang and Isaac Waisberg , did such a great job of giving students feedback during the five writing assignments that led up to the final. I won't list all the titles and themes of the 84 papers we received. Quite a few were variations of web-based start-ups, as there is a lot of that at Stanford, especially in the School of Engineering.

But here are some of the most intriguing ones:

A nationwide professional wrestling company that "empowers its wrestlers to create quality shows and programming."

"The Ministry of Love," a government agency on the imaginary planet of "Natan" that has a population of 3 million people and a declining fertility rate. The mission of the ministry to increase the birth rate via love. The key roles are "Venuses" who develop ideas and "Cupids" who implement those ideas.

An ideal organization for a high school "Queen Bee" who "rules the hallways with a fist full of Prada and enough hairspray to glue flies to the walls."

A non-profit hospice, that nurtures employees "while they deal with the emotions of death on a daily basis."

Heaven. Yes, that heaven -- where management has two goals 1. provide people with an afterlife fair to their conduct before death and 2. Encourage people to do good on earth.

"The Ideal NBA Franchise: Transforming the Golden State Warriors into Champions." This is a tough job as our local basketball team is a perennial loser.

Revamping the The National Kidney Foundation of Singapore

"Mystical Weddings," a wedding planning agency located in India.

The ideal organization for a family. This was written by a student who had been a dad for just two weeks. He was suffering sleep deprivation and other stresses and decided to imagine a better solution. It was touching and made lovely use of course concepts -- incentives, influence, and group norms, for example.

Finally, the most outrageous and one of the best papers in terms of writing and application of course concepts (written by a female student) was: "Living the dream -- would you like to to be the third wife of Tom Brady? A blueprint for the polygynous family." I never heard of the word "polygynous." It means polygamous -- one husband, multiple wives, the Big Love thing.

As I said, although I was tempted to abandon this assignment yet again this year, when I read the papers, I was -- as usual -- struck by how well the best students apply the theory, evidence, and cases from the course in brilliant ways that I could never possibly imagine. Also, the assignment reveals students who can define but not really apply concepts, as well as those rare students who haven't learned much course content.

I am wondering however, if I should open it up next year so that students can produce something other than a paper that uses course concepts to design the ideal organization. Perhaps they could do a film, a presentation, or design a game that answers the question in some compelling way. For the most ambitious students, given the entrepreneurial frenzy at Stanford, perhaps taking steps to start your own ideal organization (and telling me what you've learned) might satisfy the requirement as well. I am not sure if this is a good idea as it is hard to beat good old fashioned writing. But I am toying with it.

Last year, I wrote a post about how Justin Snider, who teaches education at Columbia, asserted that "the best principals are PRESENT, constantly interacting with teachers, students, and parents." I was especially interested in his comment about an intriguing if rough measure of how well a principal is doing the presence thing:

"[A] great back-of-the-envelope measure of whether a principal is generally doing a good job is how many students' names he or she knows. In my experience, there's a strong correlation between principals who know almost all students by name and those who are respected (and seen as effective) by students, parents and teachers."

I thought of Jason's assertions about the power of presence after getting this depressing email from a middle school teacher about her horrible principal. This boss defines lack of presence. I have reprinted most of the story below in this teacher's words, as I found it most compelling. But note the key point: "She never comes out of her office, and never spends time in the building, seeing how it functions. I can literally go weeks without catching sight of her." Scary, huh?

Please read the rest. If you are a boss, you might use this description as a bit of a self-test. Do you do this kind of stuff? Is this how the people you lead see you?

Also, this teacher is asking for advice about how to deal with this situation. What would you suggest?

Here is her story. Note she has taught at this school for over a decade:

I teach at a middle school. We have had a superintendent for five years. He’s no good, but largely did not touch the staff at my school because we had an excellent principal who did as you suggest – she insulated us from nonsense from above her. When she left for greener pastures, our super installed our current principal. (No interview process, no panel discussion. Hooray!) She’s probably a nice lady: shy, socially awkward, and apparently a “yes-man” for upper management. She reads books about “ideal” middle schools and then plans how to make ours match her vision. Alas, her vision after the first nine months was to transfer numerous successful people out of our building. She then changed the schedule, the teams, the grades we are teaching – essentially, she disassembled the school and rebuilt it from the ground up.

She never comes out of her office, and never spends time in the building, seeing how it functions. I can literally go weeks without catching sight of her – this in a smallish middle school of 540 kids and maybe 45 staff. She’s never taught above grade five, and we work with hormonal 7th and 8th graders. She is very uncomfortable talking to more than one person at a time, so doesn’t get “into it” at staff meetings with us. She has essentially disbanded team leaders, which was the democratic body in our school that used to hash out ideas and plan new strategies, with staff input. She has no one with feet on the ground feeding her information - consequently, her “ideal” visions and new structures are theoretical only – they are never held up to the light for discussion or dissection, to see if they’re workable or not.

One example: we no longer retain students who flunk more than two major classes in grades 7 or 8. Her rule. No staff input. Something about self-esteem? We’re not really sure – she’s never officially discussed or even informed us of this policy change. We have heard it through the grapevine. Meanwhile... A student of mine who flunked third quarter was informed by her that he can’t stay back no matter how little work he does for the rest of the year. Now, Bob, you’re not officially an educator – but imagine being a lazy 14-year-old boy and being told there will be no consequences for lack of effort in school. How much time are you going to spend studying or working on homework from April through June?

We, her staff, have seen the ebb and flow of parent concerns, scheduling glitches, social promotion, and poorly-constructed teams. We are long-term and short-term experts in our fields, with decades of experience among us. She doesn’t ask for our input in how to implement plans – and many of hers hit the ground like lead weights. People have tried to approach her in a variety of ways, but it’s clear from her reaction to us that any disagreement is seen as a dire threat to her. She has no confidence, and completely shuts down if she proposes an idea and the staff offers logistical questions or pushback. We literally do not know how to talk to her about what is not working, because she is so hypersensitive and easily flummoxed that we fear she can’t process it – and we fear more greatly that she will try to “get us” for expressing concerns.

We live in such a well of fear and distrust now, it’s hard for us to function. New superintendent is coming in July. We are crossing our fingers. In the meantime, I guess I’m hoping you’ll have some advice. What can underlings do to salvage things when the boss is fully incompetent to do the job – and is bringing the walls down around her as she pursues her incompetence?

What do you think? Any advice for this teacher other than to lay low and hope that her crummy boss gets canned by the new superintendent?

Tomorrow morning, Fortune's Adam Lashinsky and I are going to spend an hour at The Churchill Club talking about Apple and what other organizations and leaders can (and cannot) learn from the world's most (economically) valuable company. If you want to attend, I think you can tickets here still available and I understand they are filming our discussion (I will let you know how to see the video when I find out).

Part of me believes that Apple and Jobs have much to teach other companies and leaders. But, as I wrote in the new chapter in the Good Boss, Bad Boss paperback, part of me is starting to wonder if what each of us "learns" from Steve Jobs amazing life reveals more about our inner selves -- our personalities, preferences, and personal experiences -- than anything else. Below is the excerpt from Good Boss, Bad Boss where I toy with this argument (I edited it slightly because one sentence doesn't make sense unless you read the whole chapter).

I am writing this epilogue in December 2011, two months after the death of Steve Jobs, the most talked-about boss and innovator of our time. Like many others, I found Jobs’s great strengths, startling weaknesses, and bizarre quirks to be fascinating. For example, I wrote about him in The No Asshole Rule (in the chapter on “The Virtues of Assholes”). Even though Jobs’s nastiness was well documented before Walter Isaacson’s authorized biography was published, I was a bit shocked by tidbits in the book. As his death loomed, Jobs ran through sixty-seven nurses before finding three he liked. Still, there is no denying Jobs’s genius. Even though I would not have wanted to work for him, his design sensibilities, his ability to build great teams, and (in his later years) the way he structured a large organization that moved at the speed of a small one are admirable.

Recently, however, I had two experiences that led me to believe it is difficult for bosses who want to improvetheir craft to learn from Steve Jobs. The first came after I had taught a two-hour session on innovation to forty CEOs of midsized Chinese companies. None spoke English and I don’t speak Mandarin, so there was a translator to enable communication. I put up a few Steve Job quotes and had fun figuring out that thirty-eight of the forty CEOs had iPhones. During the question-and-answer period, they seemed obsessed with Jobs.

The most interesting thing happened, however, after I ended the session. As I left, one CEO grabbed the microphone and started hollering into it, and as I walked outside for another meeting, they were yelling at each other. The translator told me they were arguing over whether Jobs was an asshole and whether they should emulate such behavior to be better bosses. When I came back thirty minutes later, the translators ran up to me— laughing—because those CEOs were still arguing over the same thing.

As I was driving home, I started thinking that Steve Jobs (or at least the idea of Steve Jobs) was so vivid, socomplicated, and so idolized that for those CEOs, he was like an inkblot test: they projected their inner beliefs, values, desires, and justifications for their behavior onto him. The conversation was sparked by Jobs, but the content had little or nothing to do with what Jobs was like in life or in the lessons he could teach those CEOs.

Then, a couple weeks later, I went to a party and talked with two people who worked closely with Jobs for years.They started pretty much the same argument that those Chinese executives had. Although one asserted the gooddeeds Jobs had done weren’t emphasized enough in media reports or the Isaacson biography, they nonetheless started arguing (and people who hadn’t worked for Jobs jumped in) about whether Jobs’s success meant it was wise or acceptable to be a jerk and when it was worth tolerating an asshole boss. As I listened, I believed once again that the idea of Steve Jobs was prompting people to make sense of and justify their behavior, personal values, and pet theories.

So I raised my hypothesis: that people couldn’t learn much from Jobs. That he was so hyped, so complex, andapparently inconsistent that the “lessons” they derived from him where really more about who they were and hoped to be than about Jobs himself. The two people who worked closely with him agreed. And one added another reason why Jobs was and is a bad role model for bosses: Steve had such a weird and rare brain that it simply isn’t possible for another human being to copy him anyway!

I am curious, what do you think? As I re-read this, part of me still believes the argument above and part of me still believes that, well, every boss and innovator can learn something from him (despite the biases we all bring to the table). I also find it easier to think about Apple and its organization and management in a detached way than about Jobs -- perhaps because an organization, even Apple, could never have a personality and presence as vivid and intriguing as Mr. Jobs had.

P.S. The event at the Churchill Club was really fun, in part, because Adam and I didn't fully agree with each other. I especially disagreed with his arguments that Apple was unique in terms of its structure (especially how centralized it is for its size). We agreed on most things. But we had more fun and learned more -- and I think the audience did too -- because we pushed each other to refine or logic and examples. He is a smart and charming guy.